Dan Tomlinson
MP for Chipping Barnet · Labour · United Kingdom
“I hope that once this Great British summer savings period ends on 1 September, we will review that and look at the impact. Of course, the challenge with any VAT reduction is whether it will be passed on to consumers. To be clear, I do not begrudge businesses having more margin, but the objective of the hon.”
“There are a whole range of challenges and also benefits from the protocol and the Windsor framework. I agree with the hon. Member that they do not provide constraints on the policy choice on VAT.”
“The Barnett formula is applied in the normal way to those changes, so the Northern Ireland Executive received £185 million in consequentials as a result of those decisions.”
“I understand that Members are specifically talking about Northern Ireland, but across the country as a whole—some hon. Members did mention the broader campaign around reductions in VAT across the UK—a reduction to 10% in VAT for hospitality would cost around £11 billion a year, which is equivalent to the total expenditure on the Royal Nav…”
“Right now, we are engaging in what could be seen as a similar proposal to the one put forward today. We are doing a time-limited reduction in VAT, not for one sector and one part of the country, but for particular leisure and hospitality activities and consumption across the country as a whole.”
“The fact that I am not announcing this change today does not mean that the Government do not take this issue seriously and understand the representations being made. We are also not standing aside.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Dan Tomlinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“This amendment omits penalties under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes provisions from the definition of “relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. Amendment 40, in clause 225, page 212, line 28, leave out paragraph (d).— (Dan Tomlinson.) This amendment omits penalties under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (VAT and other indirect taxes) provisions from the definition of “relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. Clause 225, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 226 to 229 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 230 Compliance notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 18, in clause 225, page 211, line 27, at end insert— “(da) a civil penalty (not within paragraph (d)) relating to an obligation contained in a provision made by or under any enactment relating to tax;”. This amendment provides that a civil penalty relating to an obligation contained in a provision made by or under a tax enactment (such as an obligation in the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes provisions) falls within the definition of “relevant amount” for the purposes of clauses 224 and 225. Amendment 19, in clause 225, page 211, line 28, leave out “(d)” and insert “(da)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18. Amendment 39, in clause 225, page 212, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).”
“More broadly, it is worth noting that HMRC, alongside what is detailed in the Bill, has a public law duty to be reasonable in the way that it engages with individuals, and it will of course adhere to that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 220 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 19 agreed to. Clauses 221 to 224 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 225 Registration conditions: interpretation Amendments made: 16, in clause 225, page 211, line 24, leave out “an amount within paragraph (a) or (b)” and insert “a tax payable to HMRC or to national insurance contributions”. This amendment corrects an inconsistency. Amendment 17, in clause 225, page 211, line 26, leave out “including a relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.”
“One of my favourite things is checking and monitoring the targets that are set out for HMRC. I know that parliamentarians on both sides of the House like to write to the Minister with responsibility for HMRC to receive updates on our progress on meeting our targets. I am glad that our call wait times have decreased recently, and that we are doing more to have a higher share of digital interactions. On the shadow Minister’s point about the change coming in relatively soon, that is why it is really important to get the guidance published very soon, and I will be working with officials on that. It will be published in the coming weeks, to give advisers time to prepare.”
“Clauses 230 to 237 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May, as was just mentioned. The clauses set out further details of how prohibited interaction with HMRC will be treated and potential financial penalties, and include robust safeguards that must be applied to any decision. HMRC will always work with a tax adviser who is genuinely trying to comply, will never suspend a tax adviser when doing so would be unreasonable or disproportionate, and will always consider the nature of any potential breach and how a suspension would impact the tax adviser and their clients. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. We will reasonably consider a whole range of points that have been raised. It is right that senior professionals who interact with HMRC on behalf of taxpayers have their own tax affairs up to date. HMRC expects that of every taxpayer. That expectation is set out in industry standards and HMRC’s standards for agents. On the point around our timelines and HMRC being prompt and efficient in its dealings—the shadow Minister raised the point around standards and responsiveness earlier—I am happy to take those points away and come back to him on if there is more detail that I can provide. Question put and agreed to. Clause 230 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 231 to 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Clauses 238 to 240 set out that when a person becomes liable to a penalty, HMRC must assess the penalty and notify the person. The notice will set out the details of the penalty, why they have received it and how they may appeal, ensuring that tax advisers have a clear path to compliance. Before issuing a penalty, the authorised officer must allow the person a period of 30 days to make representations to HMRC. The clauses also place limits on how long HMRC may delay before applying a penalty, so that no tax adviser will receive a penalty after an unreasonable delay. Question put and agreed to. Clause 238 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 239 and 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 241 Reviews and appeals Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Clause 241 sets out the details of reviews and appeals in relation to tax adviser registration. It introduces schedule 20, which contains details of reviews and appeals. The schedule details that a person will be offered an internal review and may appeal to the tribunal for certain decisions about their registration.”
“The tribunal will be independent to the extent that those officers who made decisions and any determinations about the matter will not be involved in the tribunal. I think that would be right. The tribunal will include decisions of an officer of HMRC in respect of approving or suspending the person’s registration and the issuing of sanctions for prohibited interaction with HMRC. Schedule 20 also sets out how a tax adviser may seek temporary relief, which delays the application of a sanction while there is an appeal or it is subject to review. HMRC will always grant temporary relief when the suspension is just due to late tax returns or payments, and will always consider whether not granting relief would put a business at risk of failing before it had been able to appeal. I therefore commend clause 241 and schedule 20 to the Committee.”
“I have set this out, but I want to clarify that the tribunal is independent. The head of the tribunal would be an existing first-tier tax tribunal judge. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has particular experience and interest in this, I will write to him in more detail on the composition and independence of the tax tribunal on this important point. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked whether the Government would consider removing paragraph 6(7), and I can confirm that the Government do not intend to make that change. Question put and agreed to. Clause 241 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 20 agreed to. Clause 242 Disclosure of information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Clauses 242 to 246 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May 2026. We have been debating a number of similar clauses, and this is the final group concerning tax adviser registration. Overall, the measures will help businesses and individuals access more reliable advice and reduce opportunities for non-compliance.”
“The shadow Minister is right that the tax adviser registration comes in from May this year—specifically, from 18 May 2026—but registration will be phased in over 2026-27 and tax advisers will have a minimum of three months to register. Most will have more time.”
“The registration will be phased in during 2026-27. Tax advisers will not have to register immediately on 18 May 2026; it will be from then. Question put and agreed to. Clause 242 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 243 to 246 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 247 Conduct of tax advisers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Taxpayers will be made aware of which advisers face restrictions when interacting with HMRC, which will help to increase transparency and trust. It will also act as a deterrent against poor behaviour by tax advisers. I thank all the stakeholders from the tax profession who have engaged with us closely on this matter in recent months—it is greatly appreciated.”
“This is the result of a drafting oversight, which this amendment will correct. I will now turn to clauses 248 to 250, which introduce a new power to allow HMRC to publish details of tax advisers who have been suspended or barred by HMRC from acting for clients where it is in the public interest do so. The changes made by these clauses provide HMRC with a lawful basis for publishing the details of tax advisers who have been sanctioned for conduct-related reasons. They are in addition to the publication power in clause 247, which requires information about financial penalties to be published. Additionally, the new publication power will enable taxpayers to make more informed choices when selecting a tax adviser to represent them.”
“Where HMRC have reasonable grounds to suspect a tax adviser has intentionally sought to cause a tax loss, the clause gives HMRC the power to gather information about the tax adviser’s advice to their clients. Amendment 25 is a simple amendment to correct an error in the drafting and to ensure the legislation works as intended. The changes made by clause 247 and schedule 21 include expanding the definition of “tax adviser” in schedule 38 to cover not only individuals but companies as well. This reflects the nature of the tax-advice market in 2026. The expanded definition is achieved by replacing references to an “individual” in schedule 38 with references to a “person”. However, there is only one reference to an “individual” in schedule 38, which the Bill, as drafted, does not change.”
“Importantly, the powers will apply only to tax advisers who act with the intention of bringing about a loss of tax revenue, such as those who knowingly claim a tax repayment for a client who is not entitled to it or advise a client to deliberately enter incorrect figures on a tax return. This is, rightly, still a high threshold. The powers will not affect advisers who act in good faith, or who take a credible view as to what the law requires of their clients, including where they use extra-statutory concessions or HMRC guidance to form that view. They also do not affect advisers who make mistakes while trying, as the vast majority do, to do the right thing.”
“HMRC needs stronger and more effective powers to crack down on the small minority of bad tax advisers who cause such harm to the tax system. The changes made by clause 247 and schedule 21 will give HMRC those stronger powers. They impose a more effective regime for HMRC to gather information from tax advisers suspected of wrongdoing and to issue penalties where appropriate. At the same time—and I know hon. Members take an interest in this—there are robust safeguards, including appeal rights, and they are being maintained to ensure the powers are applied fairly and proportionately.”
“Clauses 247 to 250 and schedule 21 make changes that will ensure that HMRC can take effective action against tax advisers who intentionally seek to facilitate non-compliance in the tax affairs of their clients. The clauses also introduce a new power to allow HMRC to publish details of tax advisers who have been suspended or barred by HMRC from acting for clients where it is in the public interest to do so. Clause 247 makes amendments to schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012, which introduced powers for HMRC to gather information and sanction dishonest tax advisers. It is the Government’s view that those powers need to be strengthened. For example, the maximum penalty amount of £50,000 is a poor deterrent for rogue advisers who intentionally facilitate millions of pounds of tax loss.”
“All of the people working in the sector support growth and productivity and the good functioning of the UK economy, and I commend them for it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 247 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 21 Conduct of tax advisers Amendment made: 25, in schedule 21, page 514, line 38, at end insert— “(aa) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘individual’ substitute ‘person’;”.— (Dan Tomlinson.) This amendment corrects a missed consequential amendment. Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to . Clauses 248 to 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 251 Fiscal mandate assessments prepared by the Office for Budget Responsibility Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Member for Newton Abbot about in due course. The shadow City Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked about the engagement that we had before the Budget. We have had engagement with the ICAEW and others, at official and ministerial levels, on these clauses and others that we have been debating over the last half an hour or so. I will continue to engage with those stakeholders, which are an important part of the tax and advice ecosystem and provide strong representation on behalf of their members. As I have already said, I thank them and their members for their work in supporting people to get their tax right and to comply with the tax code, which, as the hon. Member mentioned earlier, is on the long side. The Government will keep doing all they can to simplify and improve our tax code.”
“The difference between sanctionable conduct and dishonest conduct is an important question. The Bill updates the definition of the conduct that is in scope of these powers, and I think it does so in a way that provides more certainty and clarity, because instead of having to prove dishonesty, which is challenging, HMRC will now simply need to demonstrate—granted, it is not simple to do so—that an adviser has acted with the intention to cause a tax loss. The Government believe that the change will make the powers more straightforward to use, while still ensuring that they are targeted only at bad actors. Objective dishonesty is quite challenging to prove. It is worth repeating that any penalties issued by HMRC will always be appealable to the independent tax tribunal, which I look forward to writing to the hon.”
“Unlike other parts of the UK, there is currently no external, independent oversight of HMRC enforcement activities in Northern Ireland; the clause will accordingly change that. Clause 276 repeals section 25 of the Finance Act 1925, which taxed the trading income of overseas dominion Governments and is now obsolete. Clause 277 provides for the repeal of further obsolete provisions and corrects wrong cross-references. Finally, clause 278 sets out the legal interpretation and clause 279 sets out the Bill’s legal short title in the usual manner. I commend clauses 274 to 279 to the Committee.”
“The changes made by clause 274 will allow regulations to be made that enable the testing of a new digital service for the securities transfer charge as part of the ongoing work to modernise the stamp taxes on shares framework. The regulations will allow returns involved in the testing to be self-assessed and digitally reported to HMRC. This change will affect only those involved in the buying and selling of securities who accept an invitation to be part of the testing process. Clause 275 enables HMRC to enter into an agreement with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to provide independent oversight of enforcement activities of HMRC officers within Northern Ireland in relation to tax.”
“Clause 274 gives the Government the power to make regulations to enable testing of a new digital service for the securities transfer charge. As part of the changes under the stamp taxes on shares modernisation project, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax will be replaced by the securities transfer charge. This will change stamp duty from being a manually reported and processed HMRC-assessed tax, to a self-assessed and digitally reported tax. HMRC is developing a new digital service for the securities transfer charge, which will reduce processing times from around three weeks, as is currently the case, to near real time. To ensure that the new digital service functions as intended it will need to be tested.”
“New Clause 2 Report on the impact of section 28 “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 28 on— (a) business investment levels, (b) capital-intensive sector employment, (c) the manufacturing sector, (d) small and medium-sized enterprises, and (e) the public finances.”— (James Wild.) This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to the House on the impact of section 28 on business investment, employment in capital-intensive sectors, the manufacturing sector, small and medium-sized enterprises and the public finances. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for his engagement during this process. I look forward to discussing further provisions. Question put and agreed to. Clause 274 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 275 to 279 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“The Government recognise that it is vital to understand how tax measures impact businesses. We publish tax information and impact notes, which set out the impacts on the Exchequer, individuals, households, businesses and civil society organisations, looking particularly at the administrative and compliance burdens. We will continue to monitor this closely; we keep all of our tax policies under review. Given the existing processes and publications, the Government’s view is that these new clauses would largely duplicate work that is already undertaken and add unnecessary reporting burdens and costs. New clauses 33 and 35 should therefore be rejected as they are not needed to ensure a proper assessment of the impacts on businesses.”
“I fully recognise the intention behind these proposals. Members on both sides of the Committee are rightly focused on how tax changes affect businesses of all sizes, across the economy and across the country. We need to make sure that we provide certainty and stability for businesses, which is what we are doing with our corporate tax road map. As the shadow Exchequer Secretary foreshadowed, however, we also need to make sure that we can raise revenue in a sustainable way to fund our public services, get borrowing down—as we do every year in this forecast—and make sure that the Government can hit our fiscal rules. As a result of some of the measures in the Bill, we intend on doing that with a headroom that is more than double what it was at the 2024 Budget.”
“One of the challenges here is that asking the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s record on living standards is like asking the thief to scrutinise the workings of the CCTV—it does not make any sense. Their record was appalling: under the previous Government, we saw the deepest squeeze on living standards of any Parliament on record, with living standards actually falling on their watch. We are seeing living standards rise in this Parliament. In the first year of this Government, wages increased faster than they did in the whole first 10 years under the Conservatives. We are seeing interest rates fall, because of the stability that this Bill and others have brought back to the economy, and we are making sure we get borrowing on a downward trajectory. The Government also publish distributional analysis—alongside their infamous TIINs.”
“Let us be really clear: in this Parliament, we are going to see living standards rise, and we are going to do all we can to beat the forecast that the OBR set out. We beat the economic growth forecast last year by 50%. We know the record of the Conservative party: when it was in power, living standards fell over five years—the worst squeeze on living standards of any Parliament on record.”
“It is a Bill that helps the Government to make progress with their priorities in the funding of public services, which is something that the Government were elected to do after public services were left in a state of disrepair in many ways at early 2024. We are making progress with things like waiting lists falling, and we are continuing to invest in our schools and our police. Rather than being distracted by update clauses—such updates would be required under the new clause—when we already have the tax information and impact notes, this Government will get on with the job of turning our country around for the good of the British people.”
“A sum for the combined impact of the changes across the TIINs is not at my disposal, but I may have a look and seek out the shadow Exchequer Secretary to pass on such a figure in the voting Lobby—or, as I do not expect that we will be in the same voting Lobby any time soon, adjacent to the voting Lobby. To wrap up, as well as thanking Opposition spokespeople, let me thank all members of the Bill Committee as we come to an end. I thank them for their engagement and for saving me at various moments, when I seemed to lose the ability to speak, as all I could see was a vision of me and the shadow Minister on a bumper car on Valentine’s day. This is a significant Bill.”
“I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, for his engagement and diligence throughout the Committee’s six sittings in scrutinising the Government on this topic, and a whole range of others. I also thank the shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, for doing the same. We have referred on a number of occasions to the tax information and impact notes. I do not know whether hon. Members have read any of those yet, but I signed every single one off in advance of the Budget, in one of the highlights of my professional career. I can let the Committee know that if TIINs do one thing, it is to detail the additional administrative burden and the costs—not the direct costs, but the indirect ones—associated with tax changes.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.”
“The higher multiplier will be only 2.8% above the national standard multiplier, meaning that properties in its scope will pay a reasonable tax rate too. These new rates will be worth almost £1 billion a year and will benefit more than 750,000 RHL properties. They will mean that from April, the most valuable properties, such as large distribution warehouses occupied by online giants, will pay a tax rate 33% higher than that for small high street properties. The new business rates multipliers being brought into force by these statutory instruments are the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I commend them to the Committee—and forgive me, Mr Mundell.”
“At the Budget we announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, fairer system with permanently lower multipliers for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. The scope of these new multipliers is broadly the same as that of the current RHL relief. These new multipliers will be 5p below their national equivalents, but when combined with the outcomes of the revaluation, the tax rate that RHL properties on the small business multiplier pay next year will fall by nearly 12p and the rate for RHL properties on the standards multiplier by 12.5p. It is important that we make support for the high street sustainable, so we are funding these new multipliers through higher rates on the top 1% of properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above.”
“The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which the new retail, hospitality and leisure and high value business rates multipliers will apply. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—[Hon. Members: “No!”] No? Oh, that is totally wrong; who have we got in the Chair? [Hon. Members: “Mr Mundell.”] Mr Mundell—that’s right. Forgive me for my sins; I know not what I do. Members will be glad to know that I do not plan on speaking for 15 minutes today, as I did in the Chamber the other day. The regulations give effect to the new business rates multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure and high-value properties. This is the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century.”
“At the Budget, we published a call for evidence on how to remove further barriers to investment. Transforming business rates is a multi-year process. The Government remain firmly committed to collaborating with stakeholders and with businesses small and large to achieve further meaningful change in the business rates system. Question put and agreed to. Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.— (Dan Tomlinson.)”
“If the shadow Minister will not concede that his Government would have got rid of the reliefs overnight, he seems to be suggesting that there was a multibillion-pound unfunded tax cut that they did not tell us about before the election. I am not sure which he would prefer. In advance of the Budget, we considered the inclusion of large retail stores within the high-value multiplier. It is really encouraging that Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Iceland and other large retailers have welcomed our getting the balance right in the business rates system and setting the multiplier at a rate that has allowed some shops to reduce prices, or at least hold down price increases for consumers, because of the changes that we made and the proportionate way in which we went about making them. We are committed to going further to reform the business rates system.”
“In response to the points raised by the shadow Minister, it is worth emphasising that the decision to introduce new tax rates to the system means that, for the first time, a typical high street business now has a lower multiplier—a lower tax rate—than the online giants and the larger properties. The tax rate on larger properties is 33% higher than the rate paid by a smaller property on the high street. That significant difference is the first step in the reforms that we have implemented to business rates. I will not make the point that the previous Government would have removed the reliefs overnight, but I will say that if they were planning on keeping them, I do not understand why that information was not in the documents that the OBR published in advance of the general election.”
“New clause 27 aims to require HMRC to report on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The £35,000 threshold, above which an individual is liable to repay the full value, has no impact on those whose income exceeds the threshold, as prior to its introduction they did not benefit from a winter fuel payment. The Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary. This measure will be monitored through HMRC’s compliance and reporting systems, including pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment data. I commend clause 55 and schedule 10 to the Committee; I urge the Committee to reject amendment 41 and new clauses 10 and 27.”
“Amendment 41 aims to uprate annually, in line with the consumer prices index, the threshold above which an individual is liable to repay the full value of their winter fuel payment. New clause 10 aims to require the reporting of the impact on households and on the Exchequer of uprating the income threshold for the charge annually in line with CPI. The Government believe that those changes are unnecessary at this time. The £35,000 threshold has been set at a level such that more than three quarters of pensioners will still benefit from the payment at the end of this Parliament. The cost of benefits is already published regularly by the Department for Work and Pensions through the benefit expenditure and caseload tables.”
“Clause 55 and schedule 10 will provide a mechanism to recover the winter fuel payment from those who are not eligible, to balance support for vulnerable pensioners with responsible use of taxpayer money. Historically, the winter fuel payment has been near universal for pensioners over state pension age. In June 2025, however, the Government announced that only those with incomes up to £35,000 or receiving certain means-tested benefits will benefit from a winter fuel payment in winter 2025. Parliament has already legislated to make the payments to all pensioners who have not opted out. To ensure that the support is targeted, HM Revenue and Customs will recover payments made to pensioners with a total income above £35,000 via the tax system. I turn to the non-Government amendments.”
“I thank the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Maidenhead for their remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his enjoyable intervention. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we believe that total income is a reasonable way of assessing income. There are other ways of making that assessment, but we think that in this instance total income is appropriate.”
“There are different ways of measuring income. In this instance, the Government’s decision is that total income is an appropriate way of measuring it. We keep all taxes and all thresholds under review. We are legislating for the threshold to remain at £35,000 but, as hon. Members with experience in government in the run-up to Budgets will know, all things are always considered in the round. Other thresholds in the tax system were frozen by the previous Government and, as was debated in Committee of the whole House a few weeks back, income tax thresholds were frozen as well. On the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about tapering, the Government’s view is that that would add complexity to the system. We think that a simple threshold is a preferable approach.”
“Schedule 10 Winter fuel payment charge Amendment proposed : 41, in schedule 10, page 395, line 28, at end insert— “(1A) The Treasury must, each tax year, amend the amount specified under section 681I(1)(b) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”— (James Wild.) This amendment would provide for the £35,000 income threshold for implementation of the winter fuel payment charge to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“The Government’s view was that it was right to put a threshold in the system. Labour Members do not think that it is right for the super-rich to continue to receive the winter fuel payment. On the hon. Member’s broader point, the Government’s policy is to continue with the payment as it stands, as a stand-alone payment for those who have a total income below £35,000 a year. Question put and agreed to. Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“As set out already, we are delivering a revised tax regime for carried interest that ensures fund managers pay their fair share of tax, while maintaining the UK’s position as a world-leading asset management hub. We have engaged closely with the sector to understand the impact of the reforms at every step. We published a call for evidence in July ’24, a consultation at the autumn Budget ’24 and a technical consultation on draft legislation in July 2025. We therefore do not consider new clause 11 to be a necessary addition to the Bill. I commend clause 56 and schedule 11 to the Committee and ask that new clause 11 be rejected.”
“The changes made by clause 56 and schedule 11 will establish the revised tax regime, under which an individual who receives carried interest will be treated as carrying on a trade. The carried interest will be treated as the profits of that trade and will therefore be subject to income tax and class 4 national insurance contributions. That reflects the Government’s view that carried interest is, in substance, a reward for the provision of investment management services. New clause 11 would require the Government to publish a report within two years of the legislation passing, covering various issues in connection with the impact of the reforms introduced by clause 56 and schedule 11. The Government recognise the vital importance of the asset management sector in supporting growth.”